James Purnell: I think that the hon. Lady's question is about people who are in an area where they cannot currently receive terrestrial digital television. Of course, if they buy a set-top box it can be used until the digital signal is switched on. Clearly, those people would be well advised to prepare as early as possible by buying the necessary equipment, which will then be available to be used when the switchover happens. That will stop them from having to have a last-minute rush to ensure that they can continue to receive television.

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that competition at the local and regional level is important. Like other hon. Members who have made their views clear on that during this question time, I advise him to make clear to ITV and Ofcom the strength of his feelings about it. I am happy to agree that the west midlands and east midlands are different regions.

James Purnell: Yes, that is exactly what we want to do. We want to learn from the hub areas and spread that knowledge around the country. My hon. Friend raised the issue of funding the renaissance in the regions programme at the last Question Time. I hope that he welcomes our announcement. As he says, the hub areas have had an important impact. The number of people visiting local and regional museums has, we think, gone up from about 8 million to 14 million. That is a huge achievement, thanks to all the people who have been involved in the local and regional work that has been possible.

Anne Begg: I am delighted to hear the Minister's reply, because as soon as the Olympics is mentioned, one thinks of sport; when the London Olympics are mentioned, one thinks of sport in London. I am not a huge fan of sport and am keen to ensure that everyone realises that there is more to the Olympics than just sport. People visiting with family members or sports teams will have opportunities to see some of the other things that are going on around Britain—in Scotland and elsewhere—that may not be necessarily geared towards a sporting audience. Will the Minister assure me that there will be as much emphasis on those activities as on the sport?

Peter Bone: In the Croyland ward in my constituency, there are three polling districts: CA, CB and CC. There have been four elections in that ward since May 2005. In the two elections when there was a polling station in the CC district, CC topped the turnout or was second. In the other two elections, when there was no polling station in CC and people had to drive out of the estate on very difficult route to vote, the turnout dropped by 53 per cent. Will the Electoral Commission consider making it compulsory to have a minimum of one polling station in each polling district?

Andrew Love: May I ask my hon. Friend to consider strengthening the guidance given in two respects, the first of which is the distance that people have to walk? People have to walk a tremendous distance to some of the polling station in my constituency, which is, of course, a deterrent to voting. The second issue is the use of temporary structures on sites that are convenient for people to go to. My local authority never seems to use any temporary structure, because of the cost involved. Could we give some guidance that would strengthen local authorities' ability to make it easy for people to vote?

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Any amount is gladly received, but as my hon. Friend knows, the situation has been going on for a long time. Many of the churches are medieval and need an enormous amount of upkeep, so can we come to a sensible conclusion quickly?

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he at least is consistent even if all around him inconsistency reigns supreme.
	May I address a minor point raised by Lords amendment No. 3, and urge the Minister to spend a little time explaining to the House the issue of the Secretary of State's state of mind when those decisions are made? Each consideration that the Secretary of State must make is couched in similar terms. Proposed new paragraph (a), for example, says that a document can be cancelled if
	"the Secretary of State thinks that the information provided in connection with the document was or has become false, misleading or incomplete".
	In proposed new paragraphs (a) to (f), it is perfectly proper to use the words,
	"if the Secretary of State thinks that",
	because the Secretary of State must form a reasonable view, but I question their use in proposed new paragraphs (g),(h),(i),(j) and (k). Is it not writing into statute an admission on the Government's part of just how incompetent the Department has become? It suggests that the Secretary of State thinks that "the holder has died" or that they have
	"been removed from the United Kingdom (whether by deportation on otherwise)".
	The Secretary of State does not know whether someone has been deported, but thinks that they might have been, so will cancel the relevant documents. I would prefer a little more certainty in that Executive area. I accept that that is a forlorn hope, given the nature of the Department, but it is not unreasonable to expect a deportation to have taken place or an order to have been made. That is preferable to the pious expectation on the part of the Secretary of State that something might have happened. It might not have happened—who cares? —we will take the documents anyway.
	I am sorry if that observation sounds flippant, but it is based on reality. The Government's record on deportations, and on assessing someone's leave to enter and knowing whether they have retained the leave to enter or to remain, is not a good one. I would expect the statute to be framed in terms of greater certainty, so I would welcome the Minister's observations on that specific point.

Liam Byrne: The Government agree with Lords amendment No. 19, but resist amendments (a) and (b) for reasons that I will set out, but before I do so, I wish to put on the record my personal thanks to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in debates in the Chamber and in Committee. The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is right to say that this has been one of the most important parts of our debates, and I am grateful for the light that that has shed on the question.
	I am also grateful to Professor Al Ainsley-Green, the children's commissioner, with whom I have met and discussed these proposals; to the Refugee Children's Consortium, which includes Barnardo's and the Children's Society; and to the Association of Directors of Children's Services in England and officials in devolved Administrations not only for the help that they have given to us in getting the duty that we have introduced framed in the way that we have, but for the assistance that they have given to us in putting together a much broader programme of reform in how the Border and Immigration Agency treats children.
	This duty is one of four important measures that I have introduced over the past 12 months. We have the duty that we propose here. We have the new safeguarding code. We are now in the process of piloting alternatives to the detention of families with children. That pilot scheme will soon be operational. Of course, we are also consulting publicly on how our policies on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children can be changed. In particular, I am keen to see a much stronger provision of local authority care, with specialist authorities coming forward to look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, thus providing much greater protection than is currently available. It is not a case of eventual persuasion being needed, but part of a much broader and systematic programme of reform across the BIA.
	There have been debates about section 11 in the Chamber, in Committee and in another place, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments, save to point out that section 11 of the Children Act 2004 contains a double-headed duty. It is not only about keeping children safe but about promoting their welfare. The hon. Member for Ashford errs just a little when he colours the argument by stating that Ministers say it would be impossible to enforce the immigration rules if section 11 was imposed on the BIA. That is not the argument. The argument is that it would create the risk of judicial reviews and other legalistic devices being thrown against the agency, which will slow down its ability to remove people to the country from which they came—when courts have said it is appropriate to do so. Where there are chinks of light for people who want to resist BIA actions, they are pursued with some force, so my concern is that when Home Office lawyers and, in particular, BIA operational leaders, say that there is a risk that judicial reviews will multiply, it will slow the process of legitimate removal. That is dangerous, because where there are barriers to legitimate removal, we know they will be exploited by those who seek to do children harm.
	In a nutshell, if a section 11 duty was imposed on the agency, it would not be a risk-free measure; it would create a new risk—that the deportation removal process would be slowed down—and we know that is bound to be exploited by those who could do children harm.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman has a keen eye for some of the practicalities of the debate; he will be delighted to hear that discussions are ongoing with my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
	The upshot of my argument is that to accept section 11 is not risk-free and I am not prepared to take that risk at this stage. There are a number of necessary consequences. The first is that the code must apply to BIA contractors—a point put to me forcefully by children's charities. I am happy to accept that principle, which is important because the BIA works with contractors to provide both detention and escorting facilities. I can be clearer than my noble Friend, Lord Bassam: the code will apply to BIA contractors currently on the books and it will apply to BIA contractors in the future.
	The reason I resist amendment (a) is fairly straightforward. The hon. Member for Ashford put his finger on the key principle—transparency. It is absolutely crucial that departures from the code are recorded. Amendment (a) is sketched in such a way that it begins, in effect, to make the Border and Immigration Agency accountable to the children's commissioner, and to extend his original role. Let us remember that his original role is carefully defined in legislation: it is to ensure that children's views are taken into account. As the House will know, I am keen to avoid such a change, because an important part of the Bill is the creation of a much more powerful regulator, and I do not wish to blur roles and responsibilities in the regulatory system. I want to make sure that there is one regulator, who is unchallengeable.
	However, I have asked officials to talk to the children's commissioner about how we can satisfy the ambition behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford, and I can now tell the House that where there are deviations from the code, the BIA will be required to record them. Those departures will be reviewed by a senior member of the BIA team, as and when they occur. We will also alert the BIA's chief inspector, and if it wishes to undertake an investigation on that point, it is empowered to do so. On top of that, there will be quarterly meetings between the BIA and the children's commissioner, at which all departures from the code will be discussed. I am told that officials working with the children's commissioner believe that that is a workable and sensible mechanism.
	I hope that that puts some concerns to bed, but I can give the House an additional comfort: under section 2(9) of the Children Act 2004, the commissioner has the right to be supplied with any information relating to BIA functions that he may reasonably request to discharge his role. Our policy will be to disclose immediately, should the children's commissioner seek to lodge such a request. Those are important safeguards, which I am happy to read on to the record this afternoon. They underline the key point that the hon. Member for Ashford made: if the code is to be worth something, there must be transparency as regards its enforcement.
	I must apologise to their lordships for the late arrival of the code; that was entirely my responsibility. The code was late because I was not satisfied with the original draft. To my mind, some of the wording of the original code was ambiguous. It was not hard-edged enough in terms of the obligations that it imposed on the BIA, so I ordered a rewrite over the final weekend, and that produced a delay in making the code available in another place.
	I wish to resist amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 19. I sympathise with the argument made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which is that we need to press on as fast as possible with the implementation of the code. The word of comfort that I can offer is straightforward: the code will be put out to a full public consultation, in line with Cabinet Office guidelines. I will work with the children's charities to help to get that right. I have met them already and I am happy to meet them again. That means a full three-month consultation period, which will take place before the code is put in place—in, I imagine, about six months' time. We will follow the Cabinet Office guideline-based process to get the code right and to put it in place, and I think that that will serve the ambitions of the hon. Member for Ashford. I urge the House to resist amendments (a) and (b), and I commend Lords amendment No. 19.

Damian Green: May I express my gratitude to the Minister for the steps forward that he has taken? He has made genuine and welcome concessions in response to our amendment (a), and I am glad to hear of them. Sadly, although we have inched towards each other, I do not think that we have yet met in the middle of the bridge. I am not convinced that a quarterly meeting with the children's commissioner is enough, as in some cases an immediate and urgent investigation will certainly be required. As I say, I welcome the Minister's concessions, but I do not think that they go far enough, and I still wish to press amendment (a).
	On amendment (b), I take the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made about the six-month delay, but as we have just heard the Minister say that it will take six months for the code to come into force, it seems to me that we are left with a distinction without a difference. However, I will press amendment (a) to a Division.
	 Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Douglas Alexander: In response to my hon. Friend, I would simply observe that it is no secret that there have been divisions in the UN Security Council in recent years as to the way forward. As recently as January, a motion was tabled at the Security Council that precipitated a veto from two members, and although I accept and share his concern and frustration at the glacial pace of change in Burma, which all of us want to see accelerated, I ask him to take heart in the fact that the Security Council has spoken with one voice. It is against that backdrop that special envoy Gambari will make his second visit to the country.
	I assure my hon. Friend that, based on my conversations with the Secretary-General, never mind the ones that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had with him in recent weeks, I know that he shares the broad sense of frustration felt in this House and in the international community. Careful, calibrated judgments have to be made regarding how best to ensure that international pressure yields the results we all want to see.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am grateful for that because I read with horror the account given by diplomats. They say that the regime probably still holds between 2,000 and 2,500 protesters. As he said, many are being detained in so-called "new life camps", which are re-education centres a long way from the capital Rangoon. People are jam-packed in rooms where the walls are covered in excrement, they are not given any food, they are being continually interrogated, subject to brutal torture, routinely beaten and soaked in ice-cold water. The Human Rights Watch report is similar:
	"We should have no illusions about what is going on in Burma. Soldiers are hunting down leaders of the protest movement and torturing them. Revered Buddhist monasteries are being occupied; the monks are being defrocked, beaten and sometimes killed. Government newspapers demand unity against 'neo-colonialist stooges'...People are afraid."
	The courts continue to try protesters in secret and hand out heavy sentences, crematoriums have been working overtime to cope with the number of dead and there have even been allegations that some injured protesters have been buried alive. We can all imagine the scene, and it has been described vividly here today. I urgently call for one thing to happen right how on behalf of the detainees who are at immediate risk. We should get the International Committee of the Red Cross back in so that it can visit the detainees to ensure that they are at least being fed.
	As I said, the IPU will continue its efforts. We have attempted to visit Burma, to no avail, but we need to keep putting pressure on neighbouring countries to initiate a regional political process in a meaningful way. We should get them to get the generals to the negotiating table. The ASEAN member states of China, India and Russia must give their full backing to the UN Secretary-General's special envoy to Burma and assist him in getting this initiative off the ground.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that underlines the importance of a much wider and more sophisticated concept of national interest. Many countries say that they do not want to interfere. We know perfectly well that, under international law, it cannot possibly be justified for a state to hid behind the cloak of sovereignty by practising egregious human rights abuses, so the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is well established in international law.
	My response to other countries that are considering whether to give support to, or to trade with, Burma is simply that they do not know what the consequence of their behaviour may be. It is not simply a question of damaging consequences for individual citizens living in Burma but of the spread of disease; of an increase in the arms trade; and of regional and global insecurity that could result from a rogue state that is left untamed. It is a tiger that is on the loose, and it has to be dealt with decisively. Ultimately it comes down to the question of whether the member countries of the United Nations are prepared collectively to decide that the UN is an instrument of necessary change in the world, or whether they are content merely for the UN to be a symbol of passive acceptance of a thoroughly unsatisfactory status quo. I hope that it is the former, not the latter. I rejoice in the fact that there is substantial consensus on many issues across the House. We need to ensure that there is priority, focus, determination, resolution and clarity in public policy. That is right in itself, it is what the people of Burma need, and it is what they most certainly deserve.

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who made an eloquent, expansive, moving, and informative speech.
	The whole country is deeply disturbed by the recent events in Burma, which are arguably the result of decades of oppression. The Burmese regime may have hoped that by closing down the internet and targeting the media it could hide its crimes from the eyes of the world. If so, it has failed. Horrific repression has provoked disgust and anger across the globe. The suppression of democracy, as well as beatings, forced displacement, killings, arbitrary detention, forced labour, rape and the recruitment of child soldiers are just some of the tools used in Burma. The Burmese regime can be summed up in a few words—oppressive, abhorrent, brutal, and barbarous—but with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to express my absolute disgust with the regime in a few more words.
	As we have heard, the military regime imposed a reign of fear on the people more than 40 years ago, and it has crushed protests ever since. It remains steadfast in its opposition to free speech, worship and assembly, but the Burmese people's desire for freedom continues. That was vividly expressed when Aung San Suu Kyi's pro-democracy party won the election, but we all know that the results were ignored by the military, so instead of ruling her country, she was placed under house arrest, where she remains to this day. The freedom fight continued, however, and on 19 August this year, brave Burmese students took to the streets to protest against increases in the price of fuel, food and other basic items, as we have heard. Essentially, those already poor and desperate people were denied their most fundamental rights while the military regime continued to construct and maintain one of the world's largest armies. Burma has the 12th largest army in the world, with nearly 430,000 active troops, thus dwarfing our own armed forces and those of France and Germany.
	Students throughout the world have stood up against oppression, whether in Tiananmen square in 1989 or on the streets of Belgrade in 1992, and it was no different in Burma in 2007. Those students—hopefully, some of them will be Burma's future thinkers and leaders—were arrested in midnight raids, left to die in their cells, and killed under interrogation. In the days after 19 August, as demonstrations grew, those who remained outside the crowded prison cells marched in Rangoon, joined by Burmese monks, who are no strangers to protest. Bullets were fired, and tear gas was directed at crowds that reportedly reached 100,000 strong. As the saffron revolution began, many monks were beaten. Let that thought stay with the House tonight: Buddhist monks beaten as they protested on the streets. The monks, once the most respected group in Burma, are not safe from the state-sponsored violence and repression.
	As the Prime Minister said, we must not turn away. As Edmund Burke said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing. It takes a brave person, but also a desperate one, to face down a loaded gun and stand up for what they believe to be right. We should salute that bravery here today, but also send the message to Burma to let the Burmese people know that we stand alongside the good men and women of the pro-democracy movement in their fight. We cannot march with them, but we have the power to effect change.
	I doubt that there was significant belief among the protestors that their actions alone could bring down this oppressive regime, but any small hope that they may have endured was brutally shattered when the crackdown was launched: monasteries raided, as we have heard, thousands arrested, and unknown numbers killed. Some of the protestors were as young as seven. We hear rumours of hastily arranged cremations designed to hide the number of the dead. Is this 1940s Europe or modern day Burma? What could be going through the minds of Burmese soldiers to make them shoot their own people? Is this the same evil that ran through the minds of the Nazi SS troops? Are they only following orders or do they believe that killing their own people is the right thing to do?
	The steps to be taken in Burma are clear: end the violence, release the political prisoners and grant access to the international community. The only obstacle to a stable and prosperous Burma is the regime itself. There is no reason why Burma cannot match the economic success of its neighbours and go on to become a strong player on the international trading stage. Once the world's foremost exporter of rice, it can again be, with our help and the willingness to change on the part of the military regime.
	We have seen recently that the US and the EU have instituted firmer actions against the regime, but the UK and all other nations need to utilise all their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom. I am thankful that our Government have announced the additional £1 million of urgent aid to Burma to attempt to deliver support to those in real need, and I am glad that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are exploring other avenues. However, on the issue of support to the Burmese people we can go further.
	I thank the Secretary of State for International Development for his commitment today and trust that he will continue to review the issues of funding to projects to promote human rights and democracy in Burma. I understand that our Government are preparing for the future should reconciliation occur, and recent international meetings are an important step. It is important to look at how Burma can be supported if it demonstrates real and verifiable progress. If such a situation should develop, our primary priorities should be access to health care, education and debt relief. Those measures will hopefully encourage the regime genuinely to work towards reconciliation. But if progress is insufficient, too slow or piecemeal, stronger options must be considered.
	On the issue of health care, the closure of two Red Cross stations in March was deeply regrettable. We cannot allow international posturing to distract us from the fact that people are needlessly suffering through disease and injury as the Red Cross is forced to the sidelines. I urge the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, as other hon. Members have done here tonight, to do all in their power to have the International Red Cross and other aid agencies allowed back into Burma.
	To return to international pressure, the UK Government's key aim is to mobilise support, particularly among Burma's neighbours. The Burmese situation should be troubling to China for several reasons: Burma is on its doorstep and Beijing is wrong to think that domestic unrest in Burma has no regional impact. Burma is a country transformed in recent years into a virtual client state, where the Chinese are building roads, burning forests and backing gas projects. However, we are grateful for their support for the latest UN Security Council statement and for the facilitation of access for the UN special envoy. Ibrahim Gambari has been instrumental in opening new dialogue between the military and Aung San Suu Kyi's pro-democracy party. The pressure that that brought about must be maintained. China must stay involved in the process and the international community is watching China closely in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics.
	I take this opportunity to urge the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has a 8.25 per cent. holding in the Bank of China, to use its position to bring about a change in attitude of Sinopec and PetroChina, and dare I say, even the Bank of China itself. It should not rest easy with the Royal Bank of Scotland shareholders that they are benefiting from the profits of Burmese repression.

Gordon Banks: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if we gathered some more information regarding UK trading and investments within Burma, we could apply our own individual pressures in that way as well.
	It is also grossly unacceptable that the First Minister of Scotland seeks to make Burma an ally in his conflict with the Westminster Government.
	Despite Burma's massive army, it is a fragile state where the danger of fragmentation is real. Insurgencies and drug warlord militias could easily fill a vacuum, and that is certainly something that no one wants to see. China can be a strong voice for reform in Burma, but, as we have heard tonight, it should by no means be the only one. Thailand must also accept responsibility as a primary funder of the military regime by its purchase of Burmese gas. India is another country that must live up to its responsibilities in the region. Its uncritical relationship with the regime is very disappointing and I hope that recent representations made by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will assist in moving the Indian position. India is the largest democracy in the world, and economically supporting such a repressive regime must be made to embarrass politicians in India.
	The international approach is so vital. The protestors know that the regime will not relinquish power at the behest of the Burmese people alone. The leaders have no interest in the people and never will. The real drivers of change and reform must be Aung San Suu Kyi, the democratic political opposition and the ethnic groups in Burma. The protestors need to know that their voice is having an impact on us here in the west. As the protestors speak directly to us they are saying, "We are here. Look at what is happening. Please help us." Those people and indeed the world are watching this Parliament today to see that we are doing everything in our power to bring these atrocities to an end and to send the strongest and clearest message to Burma that this action will no longer be tolerated.
	We all know that we have strong colonial ties to Burma and I am sure that many in the Chamber will, like me, have had family stationed there, and that places an additional responsibility on the UK to seek a resolution to the current problems and to ensure Burma's future.
	But before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to talk briefly about the role of Aung San Suu Kyi. This remarkable woman has spent 12 years under house arrest as she has watched her country descend into chaos. We debate in this Parliament about whether 28 days' detention without charge is acceptable, yet this woman has been held hostage for 12 years and her only crime has been a desire to make Burma a better place in which to live. Her struggle is one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia, and indeed the world, in recent decades. She has become an important symbol in the struggle against oppression and serves as an example to others around the world. Her name, along with that of Mahatma Gandhi, will echo through time as a leading light of non-violent protest in support of human rights. I am sure that many in this House will join me in looking forward to the day when she gains her rightful place as the leader of Burma.

John Bercow: I am incredibly grateful because the hon. Gentleman not only makes a very good speech, but has also proved to be highly generous in giving way to me. What he says about Aung San Suu Kyi is absolutely right. Will he further agree with me—she is undoubtedly the world's greatest heroine today—that the regime in Burma has no moral entitlement whatever to say, "Yes, we will meet her, but on condition a, b or c." The regime that is guilty of ethnic cleansing, of war crimes, of crimes against humanity and probably of genocide should agree unconditionally to meet someone who is far greater than any of them will ever be.

Nigel Evans: It is privilege to participate in this debate, which is rightly full of passion—there have been some excellent speeches.
	Everyone in this country, never mind in this House, was repulsed by the pictures from Burma, where people who were complaining about their plight and the starvation and poverty levels under which many of them were living engaged in peaceful protests. They wanted their view to be known, and they were joined by monks, who are revered by the people of Burma and who live among them. The people wanted peacefully to demonstrate against what they saw was wrong, but they were beaten, arrested and persecuted. A heavy hammer came down on anyone who dared to speak against or threaten the regime, which has existed for far too long.
	We must remember how hideous the regime is. I mentioned earlier in the debate James Mawdsley, who visited that country. Many Christians live in Burma, and they are persecuted—for example, they cannot move about as we can here, because the multiplicity of faiths that we have here is simply not allowed in Burma. James Mawdsley was distributing Bibles, and he was arrested and put in prison, which shows what sort of regime we are discussing.
	One reason why we can see what is going on at this juncture is the bravery of journalists, some of whom have visited Burma under cover. They have reported what is going on in that hideous regime, and it is important that they continue to do so. We are grateful for the risks that they take and for the work that they do.
	Aung San Suu Kyi has been mentioned many times. She has experienced 12 years of illegal detention, and she is an iconic figure who personifies the fight and struggle of the ordinary people of Burma to be free. She is the only imprisoned Nobel peace prize laureate in the world. Glenys Kinnock MEP never spoke a truer word when she said last week:
	"Aung San Suu Kyi symbolises the Burmese people's struggle for freedom. She is isolated, denied her liberty, her voice stifled and her communications cut".
	Aung San Suu Kyi is a beacon of light in that country. She has demonstrated a tremendous commitment to liberty. She has been likened to Gandhi, because of the way in which she has peacefully sought to promote what everyone in this country takes for granted.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) mentioned parliamentarians in Burma who are now sitting in prison, and we must remember our responsibility as parliamentarians to them. Sometimes people ask what is the point in having yet another debate about yet another country in the House of Commons and in having yet another march—there was a march through the streets of London only a few weeks ago, when people showed their solidarity with the people of Burma. Today, a veteran of the 1988 demonstrations, who went to jail for six and a half years, explained to me that the message that they are not forgotten will get through to ordinary people in Burma and to people who are languishing in jails in Burma today. When people marched through the streets of London, people also marched throughout the world. That has not gone unnoticed, and it will give people in Burma succour and strength to know that we are thinking about them and the conditions in which they live.

Nigel Evans: One of the merits of this debate is that we can share our experiences, such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who has had first-hand conversations with those who have been persecuted by the regime, and those of people in our constituencies—and that message will not stay only in this House. We know that the Government are listening to us tonight, and they will also listen to what the people of Burma are saying about what they feel should be done. I will discuss what the protestors, both in 1988 and of a few weeks ago, want to see us do.

Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but there is also the moral point of view: how can people sleep at night when they know that they are helping prop up a regime that carries out the atrocities that we have spoken about? That regime can turn on a group of peaceful protestors and imprison, torture and kill them. Is that what those propping up the regime want to be involved in? As far as I am concerned, they should question their consciences on an hourly basis.
	We have mentioned China, India and Thailand. They and all the other ASEAN countries are important; they all have a role in trying to convince the regime that its time is up and it is time to move on. I hope that none of those countries abdicates its responsibilities; it is important that they all use their influence in every way, shape and form with the junta and its hideous regime.
	I understand that the ASEAN countries have been reluctant to suspend Burma from their group. What does the Burma regime need to do before those countries say, "Enough is enough"? I cannot think of anything worse that that so-called Government can do. The wake-up call is there; in the light of the fresh reports from Burma, I hope that the ASEAN countries will consider their responsibility not to involve themselves with the regime.
	I mentioned the '88 generation, which works a lot with civil society in Burma. It is right that we give aid that gets through to the Burmese people, but we should also give aid to elements of civil society operating within the country, which are trying to bring about change. It is important that we do that.
	I shall finish by quoting from the letter sent by the '88 student generation to Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, on October 16; it casts light on the situation. It starts by saying:
	"As you know, we are on the run and may be arrested any day. Even under this situation, we are still committed to work for national reconciliation in Burma by peaceful means. This may be the last letter we send to you before our own arrest and torture and we send it with the utmost urgency."
	I hope that the United Nations will think long and hard about that letter and what it says the UN should do. I spoke with an artist from the '88 group who was imprisoned for six and a half years. He was beaten and has been persecuted, but he loves Burma. He has married an English lady and is about to have a child. He wishes to return to the country, but he wants to see change there. That must happen. His spirit and that of the people in prison in Burma tonight will live on until the regime falls.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. Perhaps I shall not bring to it the same detailed knowledge and passion we heard from the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)—and others, in case he thinks that I am the second member of his fan club here today. Anyone listening to the passion and detail with which he described events could be nothing but moved. It illustrated why it is important to have such debates in this place, and leads me to one of the reasons why I wanted to take part.
	Since becoming a Member of this House a couple of years ago, I have found that despite all the cynicism we might have about this country, which is sometimes engendered by our own behaviour in the House and by the comments of journalists and commentators, the letters I receive and the lobby groups I meet at Westminster make it clear that this country and its Parliament are often a beacon of hope for oppressed people throughout the world, shining for them and showing them that people in a democracy care about their plight. Sometimes in the darkness of their oppression they can feel that they are forgotten, so it is important that we are having this debate today.
	The debate is also important because, just as Parliament is a beacon of hope to those people, it is a cause for concern to oppressive regimes. They know that the spotlight that shines from such debates, and the actions generated by them, will ensure that their dark deeds are exposed and that the sort of activities in which they engage against their own citizens will not go unnoticed. I wanted to take part in the debate for that reason. Moreover, Members from England, Scotland and Wales have spoken, and I want to make it clear that representatives from the whole United Kingdom see this issue as one of concern.
	The abuses of the Burmese regime have been well highlighted, illustrated and documented in the debate and I do not want to take up time by adding to that. However, I welcome the outline given to us at the start of the debate regarding the Government's actions. Although many Members expressed reservations about the effectiveness of those actions or how far the Government have gone, it is nevertheless important that we take the issue seriously as a country, and put pressure on the United Nations and directly on the regime to give hope to those who find themselves oppressed.
	As a result of that pressure, we are seeing more concerted action, whether it is from Australia, which is now taking action with regard to the bank accounts of some of the members of the regime; Japan, which used to be supportive of the regime and has now withdrawn investment for the building of a university; or the United States, which has taken action with regard to visas, bank accounts and the purchase of gemstones.
	One thing that strikes me in all this is that even as the sanctions were announced, the regime in Burma was arresting more people. It is still refusing the Red Cross access to prisons. New reports are coming out of further abuses of prisoners, and the regime is so confident that it can ride out the storm that it has even announced the latest auction for the sale of gemstones, which could net it somewhere in the region of $100 million—a very important source of foreign currency at a time when economic pressure has been put on the country.
	One of the reasons why such things are happening is that although actions have been taken and sanctions have been imposed by the countries I mentioned, the countries that can really bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime have not, to date, shown that they disapprove in any way. I can understand why the Chinese, for example, might feel that they have some economic justification for not leaning too hard on Burma. They rely on Burma for fuel; 40 hydroelectric power schemes are financed by the Chinese, 17 oil and gas fields are being exploited by them and a 1,500-mile gas and oil pipeline is being built. They also want naval bases and other monitoring stations on the Indian ocean. The ASEAN countries have behaved in exactly the same way. There is a certain irony in the fact that, at a time when monks were gunned down and protestors arrested, the Indian Government were in Burma, signing a deal to explore for oil and gas. It would appear that the economic interests of India, which needs fuel for its economic development, have overcome its desire to see justice done for the citizens of Burma.
	There is a salient warning for us in all of this. I spoke in a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on Burma a couple of weeks ago, and I commented on the role of the Chinese. It was reported on, I did an interview, and afterwards a Chinese friend said to me, "It is very good that you stand and condemn the Chinese Government for their attitude towards Burma. But look at Europe. Look at yourselves and ask whether Britain and Europe, when it is in their economic interests, do not turn a blind eye to some of the human rights abuses in the countries with which you trade?" Indeed, hon. Members have made that point already. Why will the Government not name those companies that trade with Burma, so that citizens of this country can decide whether they want to trade with those companies?
	For a long time, the French, because of their oil interests in Burma, lobbied to have that country admitted to ASEAN and tried to stop sanctions on oil and gas investment. Only recently, it made available more than $400 million worth of currency through deals to the Burmese regime. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to say when she replies to the debate whether she believes that EU sanctions have been somewhat softened by the reluctance of France, because of its economic interests, to see strong pressure applied to Burma.
	Mention has been made of the pressure that could be put on China and the ASEAN countries. I believe that pressure is already building on them. The instability in that part of the world benefits neither the ASEAN countries nor China. When there was a strong, apparently immovable regime, perhaps they were happy to support it. Now that the prospect of long-term stability has lessened, it might push China and the ASEAN countries to apply more pressure on Burma.
	Hon. Members have said that the Chinese Government want the Olympics to go smoothly. We should use that as a lever to get the Chinese Government to pay more attention to the position in Burma and put more pressure on the Burmese regime, which they have the ability to influence.

Tony Baldry: I do not wish to repeat anything that has already been so excellently said by others in the debate, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), as well as by many on the Labour Benches.
	I want to make two points. The first relates to China. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on China, and I do not believe that we as a country, or we as a House, have yet got to grips with how we are going to deal and interact with that country. It has emerged from the debate that China is key to what will happen to most of Asia in the 21st century, and certainly key to what will happen in Burma. It is a complex country. In Shanghai, we see rampant capitalism and more department stores than in any European capital, yet in other parts of the country there is a huge amount of poverty. China is managing to lift many people out of poverty, however, and to a certain extent meeting some of the millennium development goals will largely be a consequence of China having achieved that. So China has that contrast between capitalism and state control. It is also quite difficult to work out who its decision makers are.
	How do we, as a Parliament, interact with China? As I have mentioned, there is an all-party parliamentary group on China but—like every other all-party group except the British American all-party group—it has to busk its relationships. We go out and get sponsorship from business groups and others who might have a constructive interest in China and, under the leadership of the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Ben Chapman), we have now managed to set up a fairly rudimentary programme in which a delegation from the House goes to visit the National People's Congress one year, and the next year—including next year, we hope—a delegation from the congress comes here to have meetings with us. It is a pretty basic kind of dialogue, however, and if we are to have any real influence with legislatures in countries such as China and India as we emerge into the 21st century, Parliament will have to give much more thought to how, to use a Foreign office expression, we thicken and deepen our relations with them. We can stand up in this House and make fine and noble speeches, but can we be confident that those who should be listening to them are doing so?
	The same applies to colleagues in India. We probably have more contact with them, simply because we have more cause to see Members of the Indian lower House, who come to London more frequently, but it is still pretty hit and miss. Parliament in the 21st century must work out how we can have a much more meaningful relationship with legislatures and decision takers in countries such as India and China, given their increasing importance in the region and in the Security Council.
	The second point that I want to make, while the Secretary of State for International Development is present, is that although I welcome the increased development assistance to Burma, I am now genuinely a bit confused about DFID's priorities. The Department started off by wanting to meet the millennium development goals. I think that we then moved to providing budget support for countries that we thought were reformist, doing well, ticking the boxes and engaging in partnerships such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Then countries such as Ethiopia and—perhaps—Uganda did not quite meet the criteria, so we went back to project support rather than money.
	If DFID is to give support to countries and regimes such as Burma, we need to provide some very clear signalling that it is different from offering support and financial assistance to reforming countries. In other words, we need to make it clear that we are giving assistance because Burma is a failed or failing nation and we do not want it to fail any more. It must be made clear that we are supporting only individuals or groups within such countries, making the development assistance of a different character and nature from that given to Governments of whom we approve.
	Everyone participating in a debate such as this is by instinct a humanitarian. Our instinct as a House is to provide support to areas such as Darfur, to refugees in Zimbabwe and to people in difficulties elsewhere. Sometimes we have to ask ourselves what proportion of the DFID budget should be given to such areas and whether we are confident that, in providing support and assistance, we are not making the position worse in the longer run. We may mitigate the worst that is happening in some countries and regimes, but reduce the pressure to reform further.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
	That brings me to Aung San Suu Kyi and other opposition leaders, particularly from the students of '88. The junta is incredibly fortunate to be dealing with the leadership of the quality of Aung San Suu Kyi, whom Professor Gambardi found to be focused and committed. He said that she understood not only the political but the economic task ahead in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley talked about the students of '88 and I would like to mention Min Ko Naing, one of its leaders, who, along with others, has always opposed any form of violence. The junta is fortunate because these are clear leaders with a good vision of leadership who understand that one needs to look to the future and not to the past. They are not interested in revenge and retribution and they understand that it will be a complicated battle in Burma to get the military into its rightful position and the politicians into theirs. They understand that democracy will take time but that there has to be a roadmap to reach it—not the bogus one beloved of the junta, which will take something like 100 years to complete, but a proper roadmap that puts the military into its correct place. If one looks at the difficulties with the Darfur negotiations in Libya, where it is so difficult to get a leadership that can speak for the opposition, one sees that the junta in Burma is indeed fortunate.
	The junta appointed Major-General Aung Kyi as the interlocutor with Aung San Suu Kyi. He is rated for his abilities and has clear influence within the regime, which means, we hope, that he will be able to open up the negotiations. As the Secretary of State has said, if these negotiations can take place and a roadmap is agreed—if the regime is serious—a huge range of things that the international community can do in those circumstances becomes a possibility.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right and I will come to that point. It is clear that international pressure has had some beneficial effect. In particular, China has been immensely helpful, engaged both in New York and in Burma, specifically in respect of Professor Gambari's visit. China is clearly deeply dismayed by the instability across its border in a country with 2.5 million Chinese nationals. Like others, I have been to see the Chinese ambassador to Britain, and the tactic of the Government and others of encouraging the Chinese to use their immense influence appears to be paying some dividends. We should welcome that.
	Along with others in the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks), I am surprised that India, the largest democracy in the world, has not felt it right to do more than it has done so far. I hope that the Foreign Office and the Secretary of State will do all they can to encourage the Indian Government to play a much greater role.
	The role of Thailand has been mentioned It is a key funder of the regime, not least through the purchase of gas from the Yadana and Yetagun gas fields, which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the regime, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made clear. Thailand, too, has a role and is escaping international scrutiny that should be directed towards it.
	The UN can do more. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Glasgow, East (Mr. Marshall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, we think that the Secretary-General should make it clear that this matter is of such importance that he, too, will go there in the near future. We urge the Government to underline that point. We need a resolution requiring meaningful talks with the democracy movement and the sort of roadmap that I mentioned.
	As numerous hon. Members have said tonight, we need a comprehensive and mandatory arms embargo. China, India, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine and ASEAN countries are suppliers of arms to this illegitimate regime and they should cease being so.
	We greatly welcome the EU travel ban against Government Ministers and cronies that has been in place for some time, and the smart sanctions that are being devised and deployed against the junta leaders and their assets. That is an important development of sanctions policy, which we strongly support. We welcome the extension of sanctions to timber, logging, precious metals and gems. They are small areas of the economy from which the regime gains disproportionate benefit. It is right to target those areas with sanctions. They do work, as has been pointed out. Air Bagan, the internal airline—owned and run by the regime's number one crony, Tay Za—has had to suspend its operations to Singapore because its bank accounts have been closed down. The reason for that is that all banks have such strong links to the United States that the danger to their image and business of their continuing such banking arrangements is too great. That is an example of the international community working effectively to bring about sanctions that really do hit the regime.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend yet again makes an extremely good point; it is relevant to the decisions made by the banking community that I have just described.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was the only Member to raise tonight the interesting question of the International Criminal Court. In his speech to the UN General Assembly of 25 September, the Secretary-General said that
	"the age of impunity is dead."
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has made the same point. In response to the crisis in Burma, the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference that
	"the age of impunity in neglecting and over-riding human rights is over".
	The Foreign Secretary said that the regime would be "held to account". The EU has called
	"for a thorough and impartial investigation of the deaths of demonstrators as well as other serious and continuous violations of human rights, and for those liable to be held to account."
	In the light of those statements and the dreadful catalogue of gross violations of human rights amounting to crimes against humanity and war crimes in Burma, are the Government considering working with other Governments to request the UN—through the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the special rapporteur, or a commission of inquiry or other mechanisms—to carry out a thorough, complete and independent investigation into alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, with a view to bringing a case to the UN Security Council for referral to the ICC? If so, what resources will the Government, through either the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department for International Development, commit to enable such an investigation to be conducted properly? Does the Minister accept that it is essential that such an investigation is not limited to the events of recent weeks, but that it covers the full scale of human rights violations in all parts of Burma over many years?
	All of us underestimate the power of the ICC in such circumstances—Members will remember the discussions that took place in New York last year with President Bashir of Sudan, which showed of what deep concern the workings of the ICC were to him and his regime. That enables us to make it clear—as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Buckingham have made clear in the debate—that we will hold to account the individual soldiers who take part in brutality and repression in Burma today. Just as the regime is able to use photographs to identify the protestors, so the international community is able to identify the individual soldiers in the regime and make them accountable for their actions. We need to be clear that that is what the international community intends to do.
	It is easy to be pessimistic about what has gone on in Burma and the likely course of future events, but I submit to the House that the events over recent weeks are different from those that took place in 1988. In 1988, it was a long time before we knew that more than 3,000 people had been massacred by this regime, but now, partly because of the internet, we are able to know what is going on in real time. Despite the efforts of the authorities in Rangoon, they have been unable to shut down the internet and we know what is happening.
	This regime will not be able to put the cork back into the bottle. Protest might not come back on the streets in quite the same way in the next few weeks, but the junta has done huge damage to its power structure by attacking Buddhism. So many monks have been locked up and beaten that as, inevitably, they are released and trickle back into their community, there will be fury at how they have been treated. Indeed, over the past weekend, graffiti has been appearing on the walls in Rangoon saying "Than Shwe killer". That is an example of the change that is taking place in Burmese society.
	Let the whole international community determine that this time things in Burma will be different. I want to end with a quote from the end of a good report just published by the Thailand Burma Border Consortium:
	"The military regime has committed crimes against humanity and systematic human rights violations for far too long, and the coping strategies of rural villagers are almost exhausted. A window of opportunity exists for change in Burma, an end to the primary causes of forced migration, and a new era of peace and justice. Burma's civil society has created this momentum, but the responsibility now shifts to the international community to ensure an end to the regime's impunity."

Jeff Ennis: I want to present a petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs. Catherine McDermott and more than 5,000 residents from my constituency and throughout south Yorkshire. The petition protests at the lenient sentencing policy for drivers involved in fatal hit and run accidents. Mrs. McDermott's grandson, Kyle, was killed in a hit and run accident in Mexborough last year.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The petition of Mrs. Catherine McDermott and residents of S. Yorks.
	Declares that 7 year old Kyle McDermott was killed by a hit and run driver on 11/09/06. The driver had 2 previous convictions for drink driving but was sentenced to just 5 months in prison.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Justice to urgently review the current sentencing policy for this type of offence with a view to introducing much stiffer penalties.
	And the petitioners remain.
	 To lie upon the Table.